Why Obama Won In A Landslide

[sarahiki]

Geez, Red, would you stop already? that is SOOOO obnoxious. Those people should really behave better. Keep their petty, obnoxious little ideas to themselves. Don't they have any sense of decorum?

[Jeebus]

Key word is "needlessly". None of your examples were that. But the 2000 and 2004 elections by comparison?

[RedScare]

Key word is "needlessly". None of your examples were that. But the 2000 and 2004 elections by comparison?

Would it be considered crass to suggest that you may not be the arbiter of "need"?

[pineda]

So, like it or not -- Obama is the next president. Everyone should just put on their big boy pants and get used to it.

Loved this statement! Thanks, Editor!

[Jeebus]

Would it be considered crass to suggest that you may not be the arbiter of "need"?

When comparing your examples to mine, yes.

[gwilson]

While a few diehards still cling to it, the 'Dems will raise taxes and crush the economy' argument is by now road hard and put up wet, and more people finally understand that for what it is--a smokescreen. An entire state voted to keep their income tax! When I get home tonight I hope to spend some time digging a little deeper into exit poll data. I heard an interesting tidbit last night on Fox from the Pennsylvania exit polls, which had white people making over $100,000 a year voting over 60% for Obama. I found that very surpising.

As for other arguments that people who are afraid of losing their jobs would never vote for Obama, well, I am, and I did. My company and my livelihood is on the brink not because of high taxes, but because of what happens when arrogance, greed, and deregulation combine to create an unsustainable financial house of cards. In fact it's 'socialism' that's saving my ass right now.

Your statement is somewhat flawed.

Any educated person who makes that statement isn't saying that taxes crush the economy. What they are saying is that raising taxes does. It is a sound theory that has been proven time and time again as well.

When the business owner's income is taxed more, he cannot invest as much of his money in to his business, which means he won't be growing it by hiring people. Hiring people not only contributes to more tax revenue, but also leads to the consumption of more goods, which creates even MORE jobs. To stimulate the economy, you have to put money where people can use it to grow their businesses and consume.

The concept that rich people don't want to pay taxes is also absurd. The idea is, everyone should pay their fair share. Right now, the rich pay more as a percentage (and as a total as well), but that isn't enough for people like Obama. The fact that the top 10% of this country's earners carry 70% of the tax load is already a bit more than their fair share. (If you want to call BS on that state, go ahead, but there is a nice 14mb excel spreadsheet available detailing the tax revenues by every demographic for past years on the IRS's website if you want to go look it up).

What telling them that they aren't paying enough is going to do is, first, insult them, second, it is going to prompt them to hide even more money, which will DECREASE tax revenues.

The real answer is to CUT spending, not add to it.

A little known fact: Income taxes are not part of the operational budget of the Federal Government.

Also, if people were worried about the economy (which was recovering from a correction very nicely with fuel prices dropping as well right before the election), they wouldn't have elected a Democrat. They are historically terrible for the economy. The two days since his election, the markets have taken a 5% daily loss. I only predicted 3%.

It is only going to get worse now.

Perhaps you should have read my post before you replied to it.

It had NOTHING to do with how much one likes or dislikes a candidate. It had to do with the fairness of the election. Obama's was fair; Bush's was, to be extremely generous, questionable. If Obama's win had been as tainted as Bush's, I would loudly contest his victory, too. So sorry that you feel integrity is obnoxious.

In the real world, Bush's election was no more questionable than Obama's. The election process didn't change. Just the whiney brats won this time, that is the only difference. (not saying all Dems are whiney brats, before someone starts whining about it).

[Mark F. Barnes]

Drumroll please............

(It's only a matter of time)

[RedScare]

Your statement is somewhat flawed.

Any educated person who makes that statement isn't saying that taxes crush the economy. What they are saying is that raising taxes does. It is a sound theory that has been proven time and time again as well.

When the business owner's income is taxed more, he cannot invest as much of his money in to his business, which means he won't be growing it by hiring people. Hiring people not only contributes to more tax revenue, but also leads to the consumption of more goods, which creates even MORE jobs. To stimulate the economy, you have to put money where people can use it to grow their businesses and consume.

The concept that rich people don't want to pay taxes is also absurd. The idea is, everyone should pay their fair share. Right now, the rich pay more as a percentage (and as a total as well), but that isn't enough for people like Obama. The fact that the top 10% of this country's earners carry 70% of the tax load is already a bit more than their fair share. (If you want to call BS on that state, go ahead, but there is a nice 14mb excel spreadsheet available detailing the tax revenues by every demographic for past years on the IRS's website if you want to go look it up).

What telling them that they aren't paying enough is going to do is, first, insult them, second, it is going to prompt them to hide even more money, which will DECREASE tax revenues.

The real answer is to CUT spending, not add to it.

A little known fact: Income taxes are not part of the operational budget of the Federal Government.

Also, if people were worried about the economy (which was recovering from a correction very nicely with fuel prices dropping as well right before the election), they wouldn't have elected a Democrat. They are historically terrible for the economy. The two days since his election, the markets have taken a 5% daily loss. I only predicted 3%.

It is only going to get worse now.

You are incorrect. There are numerous econmic studies that suggest that tx rates have no effect on the econmy. There are only "think tanks" and rhetoric that says otherwise.

You are also wrong that a businessman who is taxed cannot invest in his business. The business income is taxed AFTER the investment is made. The investment is a tax deduction. The only income that is taxed is that money that the businessman took OUT of his business.

Further, you are wrong to say the solution is to CUT spending. It is a well known economic theory that increased spending by government pumps money into a sluggish economy, helping it cure itself. Your statement is exactly the wrong approach.

And, for the most wrongheaded remark of all, the economy is falling farther into recession, not "recovering nicely" (a McCainian remark if there ever was one). Not only is the Dow NOT the economy, but historically the stock market increases under Democrats...as if that means anything. And fuel prices dropping? Even a grade school economist would tell you that the precipitous decline in oil and gasoline prices is due to the DECLINING DEMAND, brought on by the dismal world economy. The decline in fuel prices is EXHIBIT #1 of the crappy economy!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/6098326.html

From TODAY's Chronicle...

Oil prices neared $60 a barrel today, their lowest point in about a year and a half, as a growing number of economic reports point to a long and painful recession.

The number of Americans continuing to draw unemployment benefits surged to a 25-year high, the Labor Department said today, and the nation

[crunchtastic]

When the business owner's income is taxed more, he cannot invest as much of his money in to his business, which means he won't be growing it by hiring people. Hiring people not only contributes to more tax revenue, but also leads to the consumption of more goods, which creates even MORE jobs. To stimulate the economy, you have to put money where people can use it to grow their businesses and consume.

G, I can understand if you're worried. But I have to say--- I've never heard of a business--small, large or otherwise-- going bankrupt because of income taxes. Bad business plan, bad investments, supply side issues, property issues, sure. But not on account of income taxes.

[KinkaidAlum]

In the real world, Bush's election was no more questionable than Obama's. The election process didn't change. Just the whiney brats won this time, that is the only difference. (not saying all Dems are whiney brats, before someone starts whining about it).

You're kidding, right?

The election process has changed dramatically.

First, there are no states voting with push-pins ala Florida in 2000. Most have moved to touchtone screens.

Secondly, dozens of states have moved to "no fault" early voting in order to avoid election day chaos.

Thirdly, pre election polls and exit polling data were almost right on target this year. That's a big change from 2000 and 2004 which saw mathematically impossible results in states like Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida. The only state that has fishy numbers this year is Alaska. Turnout in that state was DOWN 14% compared to 2004. That makes ZERO sense because Alaska has grown and Alaska had Palin in the race! Plus, the polls for the Senate and Congressional race were wildly incorrect making some say there's a new definition for Bradley Effect; folks who say they won't vote for criminals but in the end do.

Finally, where was this year's Katherine Harris? Where were the terrorist threats in Ohio called in by Republican County officials? Where were thousands of people turned away at the polls.

In fact, in my mind, the lopsided results of this election have more meaning to me than just Obama's popularity, the terrible economy, and the people's disgust with Bush. It's also clear to me that this is probably the cleanest election we've had this century.

[gwilson]

G, I can understand if you're worried. But I have to say--- I've never heard of a business--small, large or otherwise-- going bankrupt because of income taxes. Bad business plan, bad investments, supply side issues, property issues, sure. But not on account of income taxes.

Contrary to Red's statements, I can say this: As a small business owner myself, the money I put in the bank, after taxes, is quite often used for business purposes later. Taking an additional 7% of that could be the difference between bankruptcy and solvency one day.

This still doesn't address the fact that the people he wants to raises taxes on are already footing the vast majority of the bill. That is beyond what is fair. To increase it would make it even LESS fair.

To Red's statements, there are numerous reports by economists on BOTH sides of the story. They are all based on subjective analysis of objective data and in effect trying to predict the future if something were done. None of them are absolute.

It has been proven numerous times in US history alone that cutting taxes bolsters the economy. The most recent was the Bush stimulus package that put money in the pockets of American tax payers. The markets themselves are responding to the idea of having a President in office who wants to raise taxes.

You're kidding, right?

The election process has changed dramatically.

First, there are no states voting with push-pins ala Florida in 2000. Most have moved to touchtone screens.

Secondly, dozens of states have moved to "no fault" early voting in order to avoid election day chaos.

Thirdly, pre election polls and exit polling data were almost right on target this year. That's a big change from 2000 and 2004 which saw mathematically impossible results in states like Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida. The only state that has fishy numbers this year is Alaska. Turnout in that state was DOWN 14% compared to 2004. That makes ZERO sense because Alaska has grown and Alaska had Palin in the race! Plus, the polls for the Senate and Congressional race were wildly incorrect making some say there's a new definition for Bradley Effect; folks who say they won't vote for criminals but in the end do.

Finally, where was this year's Katherine Harris? Where were the terrorist threats in Ohio called in by Republican County officials? Where were thousands of people turned away at the polls.

In fact, in my mind, the lopsided results of this election have more meaning to me than just Obama's popularity, the terrible economy, and the people's disgust with Bush. It's also clear to me that this is probably the cleanest election we've had this century.

Someone watched <i>Recount</i> recently.

Bush didn't steal an election. There is zero evidence that he did. There are administrative screw-ups that happen EVERY election. They just ended up under the lime light that year.

I don't disagree that this election was clean. I think it is great that there is a margin wide enough that no one can really complain.

[RedScare]

Contrary to Red's statements, I can say this: As a small business owner myself, the money I put in the bank, after taxes, is quite often used for business purposes later. Taking an additional 7% of that could be the difference between bankruptcy and solvency one day.

The only way you'll pay an extra 7% is if your profit is in excess of $603,000. Anything under that would result in no increase, or a lower tax bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

I've been a small business owner myself. I've owned over half a dozen businesses over a period of 15 years. Taxes never put me out of business. If an extra 7% in taxes on your $2.87 million in profits is going to bankrupt you, might I suggest not buying all of those luxury cars that you brag about every few months? You lose far more in depreciation than you'll pay in extra taxes.

As for economists predicting the future, I suspect that this statement relates to your searches that found that tax rates do not hurt the economy. The studies I refer to are studying past tax rates and past economies. For instance, Bill Clinton raised the top rate from 28% to 39.6% (the same rates Obama proposes). The result was the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in US history. By way of contrast, Bush cut the top rate to 33%. Despite your economic sunshine pumping, the economy is tanking, and is expected to continue well into 2009. Some predictions have the recession going into 2010. If tax rates harm the economy, shouldn't the economy be going up today, and shouldn't the 90s have been severely recessionary? By your math, they should...but, they didn't.

The only argument that you make that is legitimate is that those who earn the vast majority of the income pay the vast majority of the taxes. Whether that is considered fair or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.

[plumber2]

This poor little working man and small business owner has yet to have the privilege of paying too much taxes. I can only

wish I'd make enough money on some kind of transaction that would subject me to a "capital gains tax". So until I have those kinds of problems, I'm voting for the democrat.

[TheNiche]

You are incorrect. There are numerous econmic studies that suggest that tx rates have no effect on the econmy. There are only "think tanks" and rhetoric that says otherwise.

If that is what they say, then they are wrong. Flat out wrong. Period ...unless of course, Red, you don't know what an economy is and are only confusing some single metric for it and are just confusing the results of otherwise well-done academic studies.

FYI, an economy is the aggregate of all activity carried out by firms and households. If consumption is substituted for investment as a result of policy intervention, aggregate GDP for that year is not affected, but the economy in the test case has been effected and is different from the economy in the control case. And certainly in the long term, the divergent outcomes have the potential to lead to effects on aggregate GDP--whether those effects can realistically be measured through all the statistical noise or not.

You are also wrong that a businessman who is taxed cannot invest in his business. The business income is taxed AFTER the investment is made. The investment is a tax deduction. The only income that is taxed is that money that the businessman took OUT of his business.

A businessman who is taxed is discouraged from investing in a business to begin with. It is not that he cannot invest in his business. It is that it may be unwise to.

Say that you have $100,000 of cash that you can do anything you want with. You really only have a couple things you can do with it. You can use it for consumption items or you can use it for investment items. And your goal would be to maximize the net present value of consumption. That is to say, benefit to you is not achieved by making an investment, but by reaping rewards from it at some point in the future that you will be able to consume which are sufficient to offset the opportunity cost of consumption today. The amount of money that someone must pay you in a year's time to forgo consumption today is your discount rate, the minimum threshold of return on an investment that you would be willing to accept.

Now say that there is a corporate income tax that is implemented which lays claim to 50% of the returns from your investment. A one-year investment that was marginally lucrative enough to justify, say with a 10% real rate of return would have earned you $10,000 before the tax. But if you only get to keep $5,000 of your earnings, then that's only 5%, insufficient to meet your investment criteria. You would rather use your funds for consumption today than make that investment. THIS is the effect that gwilson was describing (if you read more closely).

In contrast, had there been an equivalent consumption tax on households, then at one point or another, you would be resigned to the fact that you would bare it, whether it is from consumption today or as a result of the increased consumption from your investing which you willl enjoy tomorrow. Effectively, a 100% consumption tax just means that your original $100,000 cash makes goods cost 200% of their sticker price, meaning that your cash is worth $50,000 of buying power. You can increase your buying power unencumbered by investing wisely. The 10% return may only yield $5,000 of increased buying power rather than $10,000 in a tax-free environment, but your alternative of using your resources for consumption today doesn't look as attractive as if there had been a corporate income tax instead of a consumption tax.

The consumption tax on households creates a level playing field and does not discourage investment in the same way as does taxing corporations. And as you and I discussed in person last night, whether you're just a fiscal conservative or a greedy individualist, or whether you're a bleeding-heart entitlement-monkey...the only way any either ideology can make its policy work is to get out of the way of people who would desire to invest. The cold hard truth is that the only way we can afford to retire and care for all these baby boomers is going to be to expand the economy, and that cannot be done without investment.

Further, you are wrong to say the solution is to CUT spending. It is a well known economic theory that increased spending by government pumps money into a sluggish economy, helping it cure itself. Your statement is exactly the wrong approach.

You're painting with a broad brush. Government spending can also be broken out into terms of consumption or investment, and then there are so-called 'economic stimulus' packages like we witnessed earlier this year and that Congress seems eager to replicate are only a mechanism to transfer wealth--and then disproportionately to less wealthy folks with a higher propensity to consume rather than to invest. If the idea is to recapitalize our financial system and get the cogs turning again, this would be a counter-productive kind of spending.

There are categories of government spending that should be encouraged. Infrastructure spending, for instance, should be expanded as an interim program. Any kind of project that either increases productivity (i.e. highways, ports, airports, etc.) should be evaluated. Educational programs should also be evaluated. However...where government has earned the bad reputation that fiscal conservatives attribute to it is by throwing money at these things, not providing adequate oversight at how the money is used, and thereby creating a lot of activity without actually doing a heck of a lot of good. If these funds are going to poorly-vetted pork projects, that's no good. And investments without returns may as well be classified as consumption spending.

And, for the most wrongheaded remark of all, the economy is falling farther into recession, not "recovering nicely" (a McCainian remark if there ever was one). Not only is the Dow NOT the economy, but historically the stock market increases under Democrats...as if that means anything. And fuel prices dropping? Even a grade school economist would tell you that the precipitous decline in oil and gasoline prices is due to the DECLINING DEMAND, brought on by the dismal world economy. The decline in fuel prices is EXHIBIT #1 of the crappy economy!

Prices of stocks and commodities are each arrived at as the result of forward-looking expectations.

And oil probably is the worst example you could possibly choose of a commodity that is declining in price due to declining demand in and of itself. Being traded in U.S. Dollars, the price has declined in no small part as a result of a miraculously stregnthening Dollar.

(And since the election is over, is it OK to admit yet that McCain's 'fundamentals of the economy' remark may have been imprecise but was spun entirely out of context by people that were smart enough to know what he really meant?)

It has been proven numerous times in US history alone that cutting taxes bolsters the economy. The most recent was the Bush stimulus package that put money in the pockets of American tax payers. The markets themselves are responding to the idea of having a President in office who wants to raise taxes.

Poor example! The stimulus package is a classic example of the redistribution of resources from relatively wealthy people that pay the most taxes to the relatively poor people that pay the least taxes. And the fiscal implications are aggregious! This is the kind of spending that almost guarantees a higher tax rate within a few years.

[N Judah]

There will be a giant budget deficit no matter how the government "moves the yardsticks."

[KinkaidAlum]

Obama's lead is now well over 8 million as the votes keep coming in out West.

As of midnight, it was as follows;

66,056,046 Obama/Biden

57,838,800 McCain/Palin